The items to be voted on this year are not, I think, very controversial so I don't particularly think a separate forum is required to supply discussion space. So I will propose that if there is any meaningful discussion that we just conduct it under this heading and go from there. If we find there is a topic that needs some space of its own, we'll make that available.

I see that the 2014 AGM is due to take place in a couple of days time. I have no idea how to involve myself in this. Is it all done on the web or is there a voice element. How does one connect oneself to this meeting and what time is it being held? It would appear from the agenda that there must be some sort of physical meeting as there is an item 'Discussion from the floor'. Where is the floor? I am mystified.

As I understand it, the IOMICA AGM is a virtual meeting, carried out by email. There is no actual meeting. The agenda exists to provide order to the proceedings. The motions were distributed for voting and the returns will be tabulated and announced based on the timetable in the published agenda.

ps I think I recognise your name as a competitor in the first RC World Championship in 1975 at Gosport - if I am correct, we raced against each other in the Marblehead class.

Dear John,
Yes it is I; still at it some 40 years on.
Thank you for letting me know that there is no real meeting.
This I can live with, but is does of course conflict with the items 1,2,3,4,7,8.
All these indicated to me that there was an actual meeting.

Thanks for your interest in the "meeting" process. There used to be a physical meeting in conjunction with the Worlds (and maybe at the EU Continental in the off years) and from my understanding they were poorly attended and nothing much ever happened off the floor of the meeting. Even for those, the voting inside the individual NCAs was conducted prior to the actual meeting day and put in the hands of the Secretary prior to the actual meeting also. The result is that virtually all of the proceedings was not much more than recording that things had been decided.

So it was decided (6 or 7 years ago) that we were just as well off to have more of a virtual meeting as that was what was really happening anyway. Having this meeting in conjunction with our largest events was not providing much in the way of participation anyway.

But, that was all done without really changing the processes around submitting resolutions, meeting notification, delivery of reports, voting results from the NCAs, etc.

I believe that the whole process needs to be overhauled and the necessary changes made to the Constitution and Regulations to have it happen a lot more like a real meeting.

There is no one part of it that is any better or worse than another.

Resolutions (which are really meeting motions) are submitted by NCAs but don't require anyone to second them. And then there is no process to preview them and propose amendments. To some degree the Tech SC tries to massage the proposals to correct some of the content so that it is maybe more understandable but they don't actually state that they support the resolution. And if the proposing NCA won't allow the wording to be adjusted then some potentially good ideas can be sunk before they start.

So no seconding process and no amendment process. And in the middle of that no real discussion part either, at least no discussion that can lead to a change in the resolution.

And all of this is stretched out over at least 10 weeks covering the period between when resolutions are in hand through to the actual meeting day.

In past years, when there were resolutions that had some meat to them, we have set up a section on the Forum where people could comment and in some cases there were some good discussions. But then no mechanism to allow for an amendment prior to the voting taking place in each NCA.

So in this context there is still no place for a "real" submission/discussion/amendment portion of the formal meeting as there is no timely way for the NCA Reps (Vinnie now in your case) to go back and poll their members for opinions/positions on amended resolutions.

The NCA Reps are really the participating individuals in these meetings as the members of the ICA are the NCAs, not the members of the NCAs. That is a lot of letters in one sentence.

So, I think the answer is somewhere in between what we are doing now and a proper sit down meeting.

I think someone (NCA) needs to propose a motion for next year's AGM that a committee be struck to look at the meeting process and how it is affected by the Constitution and Regulations of the ICA. And then propose a restructured meeting process be developed that could be subsequently be voted on and put into effect for ensuing years.

It may be worth looking at, and possibly adapting useful parts from, the two new IRSA guidelines for meetings. The problems faced by IOMICA and IRSA are very similar, as they must be for any organisation conducting asynchronous virtual meetings.

There would appear to be plenty of software costing well under $500 pa that would enable IOMICA and IRSA and MYA (all for just the one payment) to hold a meeting that would be very close to a real 'all round table' meeting.
I gather, there can be a chairman who can control order of speaking and verbosity, pictures can be show on the screen and it all works from all or any of PC, MAC, iPhone, etc. What might be the problem?

I think there are good possibilities. There are also issues but if the organization wants change that all becomes relatively simple. At the moment we require the NCAs to poll their owners for every vote and that has to introduce a delay in results if there are changes introduced through discussion. Perhaps we need to drop back a bit and have the NCAs (through whoever is their designated representative) vote on behalf of the organization as the NCAs are the members and not the owners. I know that will prompt some concern from a few people who want to be heard on every subject but if they don't like teh actions of their own representative then they ought to be able to "fix" that internally.

The IRSA method has some more interaction attached to it and maybe it is the right model to follow as, in some ways, the organizations function along similar lines, just at different levels.